It was in the early 1980s that getting to grips with the far-reaching environmental footprint of agriculture and rural land use in Europe became a priority for IEEP. It made us pioneers in the crucial, but sometimes tortuous, journey towards greener agricultural policies, working especially at the EU level. Here, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), scrutinised and “reformed” every seven years, has been a central focus and concern.
Back then, the policy arena was quite unlike now. Environmental voices were marginal and the CAP was a very different beast. There was no environmentally focused funding available for farmers. There was an urgent need to demonstrate which forms of production and land management were most damaging for the environment and in which locations. One of our earliest studies documented exactly how CAP funded large-scale wetland drainage was harming biodiversity, leading to European policy change shortly afterwards.
In parallel, the value of many lower input, often more traditional systems, needed to be recognised. From the 1990s onwards we sought to increase understanding of locally adapted extensive farming systems, many of high environmental value, highlighting the importance of finding ways to maintain them in the face of growing intensification. We built up the concept of ‘High Nature Value’ farming through a programme of research, conferences, reports and many national studies throughout Europe. This helped to define such farming systems, their character and locations, working with partners to show options for sustaining them.
Since these early years, a core policy question has been how to incentivise farmers to adopt environmentally benign practices and systems. Both regulation and the imposition of environmental conditions on public funds for farmers have a role here and we have contributed to policy advance on both fronts. For example, IEEP was instrumental in developing the concept of “cross-compliance” in the early 2000s, and this policy tool, frequently amended and re-named, remains in place within the CAP.
However, obtaining funding for environmental purposes on farms was clearly crucial. IEEP played a key part in supporting the early development of agri-environmental policy in the mid-1980s and its establishment as a compulsory measure for all Member States to offer to farmers in the 1992 CAP reforms and on a larger scale over time. As agri-environmental measures became more mainstream, we looked at ways to make them more effective and more appealing for farmers, for example, by documenting the strengths and weaknesses of results-based payment schemes. Our attention also turned to how to green other aspects of agricultural policy, including the introduction of green direct payments and then eco-schemes into Pillar 1 of the CAP.
From concept to policy delivery
Frequently, we have explored new ideas and principles, developed fresh concepts and mapped out how they can be applied in agriculture and policy design. Twice we have examined how the Polluter Pays Principle can apply to agriculture, first in the 1980s and again in 2023, with a focus on bringing down agricultural GHG emissions.
Around 2010, with greening the whole of the CAP on the agenda, we undertook a seminal piece of work for the European Commission, outlining the rationale for using public money for public goods in agriculture and setting out how these “goods” should be defined and incentivised. The much referenced report codified a new direction of travel, a reference point for the ensuing greening of CAP direct payments in 2013. It was also central to the successful case that stakeholders, including IEEP, made for the development of the Agriculture Act in England after it left the EU: this has public goods at its core.
Most recently, as the need to reduce the carbon footprint of agriculture and land use and increase its resilience has grown in urgency, we have been in the vanguard of thinking about how to translate the principle of just transition into agricultural policy, exploring how to provide targeted support for farms embarking on transition and, alongside this, assessing the role of private sector funds in supporting change.
However, revolution in agriculture policy is rare. Much of the change is incremental, with progress made over long cycles in an ever-expanding landscape of issues. IEEP has needed a team with many roles:
· To help mainstream environmental considerations into the Common Agricultural Policy, feeding in evidence, critique and ideas to every CAP reform from 1992 onwards (“Plough on” was the apt title of one of our first reports in this series).
· To conduct policy focused studies of critical and emerging issues, such as the resilience of crop production systems, land as an environmental resource and the scale and consequences of land abandonment.
· To undertake detailed evaluations of how policy is being applied within Europe and how it is impacting the environment and climate, as well as production. This has provided a growing evidence base, essential for informing the development of future policy and the work of the Commission in particular.
· Advice and capacity building. As the EU enlarged to the east in the early 2000s for example, we used our expertise to help build the capacity of agricultural ministries and other stakeholders in almost all accession countries, supporting them to develop their own agri-environmental schemes, addressing their particular needs. Since then, we have gone on to work also in Turkey, Serbia and Macedonia.
This work requires building trusted relationships with individuals within the European Commission, public authorities as well as the environmental NGO community and many academic institutions throughout the EU. Looking beyond Brussels is equally essential. We have always sought to base our analysis on the rural realities, diverse situations and capacities in different parts of Europe. Building strong networks and working with partners and stakeholders in a range of countries has been essential to inform, enrich and challenge the carousel of EU policies.
The current pathway
Fast forward to 2026 and our efforts to green the CAP continue, against a political backdrop which has seen the green agenda eclipsed by a focus on competitiveness. Some of our messages are similar to those of 40 years ago – funding for a move to more sustainable agriculture remains insufficient and needs to be increased. A recent briefing spells out how this should be done. What has changed is that the environmental and climate challenges have become more urgent, the economic situation facing the sector is more volatile and the political agenda has shifted towards deregulation. Today, the focus is on finding ways to help all farms transition towards more sustainable and resilient futures, minimising their environmental and climate footprints while remaining competitive. This means embracing innovation, system change and new technologies as well as mainstreaming more sustainable land management practices.
The challenge is to convince both farmers themselves and those in power that a greener, more resilient future is not only essential but also one that can be economically viable.
IEEP remains committed to being part of the debate to address these challenges and secure a greener, more resilient future as we look ahead to the next 50 years.
Photo by Raquel Pedrotti on Unsplash
David Baldock joined IEEP in the early 1980s from Earth Resources Research to start the Institute’s agriculture programme. He was responsible for pioneering projects on the environmental impact of agricultural policy in Europe and the changes required to address them, laying the foundations for IEEP’s strong reputation in this field. He built up IEEP’s agriculture team and EU networks, leading the work on the CAP in Brussels (but visiting innumerable farms along the way).
As well as being an authority on European agricultural policy and the environment, David’s specialist areas include EU strategies for climate, natural resources, and public investment. He has an active interest in sustainable development and the growing implications of building a bio-economy.
Becoming Director of IEEP in 1998, he continued to work on agricultural policy and does so still as a Senior Fellow, while declaring the current CAP reform is his last.
Kaley Hart has worked on agricultural and environmental policy for over 30 years, influencing the development and implementation of European and domestic policies which impact on the rural environment and actively involved in the debates surrounding the future of the Common Agricultural Policy. Before joining IEEP she worked on land management policy issues at UK government advisory bodies, as a campaigner at an NGO and as a researcher at the University of London. She is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow in the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter, UK, a member of the College of Experts for England’s Office for Environmental Protection and sits on the Policy and Campaigns Committee of CPRE, the Countryside Charity.
She worked at IEEP between 2007 and 2025 in a number of roles, including Head of the Agriculture Programme and Associate Research Director. She is now an IEEP Associate. Some highlights of her work include making the case for public money to be directed to public goods and helping green the CAP’s direct payments. But most inspiring of all has been the opportunities to meet, discuss and explore ways to make agriculture more sustainable with so many committed people, both within and outside IEEP, and in all parts of Europe.
